Sandy Larsen

I agree that it was no accident for Egerter to name Oswald's 201 file "Lee Henry Oswald" in December 1960, which is when it was first filed in Angleton's CI-SIG office. I, like John Armstrong, believe that the Oswald Project was so sensitive that details of it were held only in memory. When Otto Otepka of the State Department requested in October 1960 that the CIA identify which of the American defectors to the Soviet Union were double agents, this prompted Egerter into opening the Lee Henry Oswald 201 file. The middle name "Henry" was used due to the sensitive nature of the file.

Yes, Marvin Gheesling issued an FBI "security flash" on Oswald in 1959, and Lambert Anderson removed it with a "flash cancelled" on October 9, 1963. The CIA sent their two cables the following day, October 10, 1963. So my argument is that an element of the FBI took Oswald off of it's watch list on October 9, 1963. And an element of the CIA did effectively the same thing the following day, by issuing the misleading cable to the various government agencies. Both of which were done so that Oswald could get a job at a high-rise building along a presidential motorcade route without having any red flags raised.

I quit reading State Secret when I got to the part where you wrote something to the effect that Oswald was a CIA-wannabe. I knew there was no further reason for me to read your theory because it would be completely at odds with mine. My theory is that Oswald was a CIA agent and false defector to the Soviet Union. And that he'd been used by the CIA to implicate Cuba and Russia in the assassination of Kennedy. As for my "critiquing" State Secret, I've said only that I disagree with its premise, and that I disagree with you as to the reason the October 10 cables were worded the way they were. I don't see that I have to read the whole book to know I disagree with those things. But, as I said, I am no expert on the "mole hunt" angle espoused by you and John Newman. One reason I created this thread is so I could learn more. Though it appears that you are the only active forum member who is an expert on this topic. So I'm left debating the other side even though I'm no expert. Yes, and Oswald's 201 file was in CI-SIG. Which is evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was a spy. While that is true, that doesn't necessarily mean that Oswald was being used in a molehunt. Perhaps Oswald was suspected of being a mole. I happen to believe that Oswald's 201 file was in Angleton's CI-SIG office because he was a part of a special Angleton project, known to us as the Oswald Project. I don't now what you mean, that I didn't mention a cable that described the man as "Lee Oswald," not "Lee Henry Oswald." Here is what I said about the two cables, each of which talk about both "Lee Oswald" and "Lee Henry Oswald:" October 10, 1963 Cable from CIA Headquarters to Mexico City On October 10, 1963, CIA Headquarters sent a cable to the CIA's Mexico City station stating that Lee Oswald is PROBABLY the same person as Lee Henry Oswald, who had defected to Russia in 1959. The cable stated that Lee Henry Oswald was 5 ft 10 in and 165 lb. October 10, 1963 Cable from CIA Headquarters to Other Departments On October 10, 1963, CIA Headquarters sent a cable to the State Department, FBI, INS, and the Department of Navy stating that Lee Oswald MAY be the same person as Lee Henry Oswald, who had defected to Russia in 1959. The cable stated that Lee Oswald (NOT Lee Henry Oswald) had been described as being age 35, athletic build, 6 ft, receding hairline. As a reminder, in the title of the thread I use the phrase "Oswald Patsification" as a short way of saying this: "A way to keep Oswald's profile low so that he could get a job in a high-rise building along the route of a presidential motorcade." And in that way he could perform the role of patsy. I did so give the evidence... the three cables, the latter two being dated October 10, 1963. I just happen to interpret the reasoning behind their disinformation differently than you do.

There is no double standard. For everything I believe regarding the JFKA, I have in front of me a large amount of evidence pointing to something that contradicts something accepted by the WC. I can analyze the evidence for myself to determine the truth. I don't have to rely on the opinions of commentators. Nor do I have to rely on the uncorroborated stories of individuals. Generally speaking, I don't trust other people's judgments. I like to base my opinions on raw evidence and corroborated statements.

They don't accept what hasn't been proven, and rightly so. Data dumps and the posting of a dozen videos is not going to prove anything or win any converts. I have no double standard. I was given a lead as to where to look for proof of FBI lies about having Seth Rich's laptop, I researched it, and agreed that the FBI lied. I furthermore reported to @W. Niederhut what I had found. As I pointed out, Sy Hersch himself said that what he said was just a rumor. And that the Fox News report that came from that was pulled, after which Fox was sued because of it and settled out of court for six figures. It's odd how you never address those things. And as I pointed out, Craig Murray may have been fooled by a Russian agent who falsely placed blame on a disgruntled DNC employee in order to deflect suspicion from himself and the Russians. Is that any more condescending than you saying that we have been duped by the deep state (or whoever you think has duped us) and MSM "fake news?" BTW, here is what I said: "But I think you guys have probably been hoodwinked by Trump-friendly fake news sites... OR by commentators who have been hoodwinked by those sites." I have a suspicion that these commentators have been mislead by anti-Democratic propaganda.

It's all very simple: Most of us accept the Oswald was a pre-ordained patsy. (There are many good reasons to believe that... they are outside the scope of this post.) It was necessary for Oswald to take a job at the TSBD in order for him to (unwittingly) play the roll of patsy. In order to accomplish that, the perpetrators of the assassination necessarily had to have control over A) Oswald's actions, B ) Ruth Paine's actions, C) the actions of either Roy Truly or someone who could somehow control him. Of all the possible suspects there were for the perpetrators (CIA, anti-Castro Cubans, Mafia, right-wing extremists, Castro, etc.), who could possibly have had control over Oswald, Ruth Paine, and Roy Truly? The only reasonable answer is the CIA. Therefore the CIA was controlling Oswald, Ruth Paine, and Truly. Truly might have been controlled indirectly. Note that I never said anything about Truly (or anybody else) being a criminal. But whenever a coverup occurs, people do illegal things. Coverups are illegal. I don't know if Truly was a witting part of the coverup.

The policemen walking around with Chansley would check doors for him to see if the were locked. If unlocked, they would let him enter the room. What they were really doing was making him think they were on his side. They weren't. Had a door led to some important area, the police would inform Chansley that the door was locked, regardless of whether it was or not. There's your explanation, Ben. Of course, I know you will reject this highly plausible explanation so that you can continue to believe that the insurrectionists were incited by deep state boogeymen who are out to get Trump.

Marrion Baker's account of the guy on the third or fourth floor doesn't at all match the supposed encounter he had with Oswald. Wrong floor: Third or fourth vs. second floor. Wrong physical description: 165 lb vs. 140 lb. Wrong location: In the hallway vs. in the lunchroom. Wrong description of event: Suspect is standing, drinking a coke vs. walking away. How could Baker possibly have mistaken "I entered the vestibule and saw a man drinking a coke in the lunchroom" for "I saw a man in the hallway walking away from me; I called and he came back?" This is what got me started searching for the truth. I ultimately found that all the evidence pointed to the second-floor encounter having never occurred. I also found that the evidence indicated Oswald's alibi was that he was outside with Bill Shelley during the motorcade. And from those two findings I postulated that the second-floor encounter was fabricated to bring Oswald further away from his alibi, the front steps... in order to cover up the alibi. The official narrative is that Oswald's alibi was that he was INSIDE on the first floor during the shooting. The WC couldn't let Oswald's real alibi be known because otherwise critics would scrutinize photos and film, looking for Oswald outside. That was my own investigation on this topic, and it backs up what Bart Kamp found in his investigation. Later, Bart discovered the Hosty note, which proved us right about Oswald's alibi of being outside watching the "P. Parade."

Here's a very simple proof... Suppose there was indeed an Oswald/Baker second floor encounter. Then why didn't Officer Baker mention it in his first-day affidavit? Even though he knew Oswald was being charged with the murder? The reason Baker didn't mention it is because it never happened. End of proof. There are numerous other reasons to believe the encounter never happened. The most exhaustive study is the one by Bart Kamp, written up as "Anatomy of the Second Floor Lunchroom Encounter." It is here.

LOL, yep!

Oh my lord Pat, you're going to go to the grave believing there was an Oswald/Baker encounter on the the second floor. I hope Saint Peter doesn't waste his time trying to convince you otherwise.

I recall watching one person's video of a Capitol policeman backing away from the onslaught of rioters, inside the Capitol building. He would try to block one hallway and try to get the rioters to go down another. A person watching the video was familiar with the Capitol, and noted that the policeman was using reverse psychology. The hallways he tried to get the rioters to take were actually the ones he DIDN'T want them to take, and vice versa. The rioters were fooled and went down the wrong hallways.

Roger, I haven't the energy, time, or inclination to become an expert on Russiagate. My ideas regarding it are based on years of personal observation of the actions of the various actors. I do have an open mind regarding it, but I am willing only to study individual claims to see if they can be verified. A great example of this is when Keven made the claim that the FBI admitted that Seth Rich was directly involved in the DNC e-mail leak. (In this post.) He gave me his source and I spent several hours researching it. Ultimately I discovered it to be only a half-truth. Yes, the FBI did admit to having Rich's laptop, and indirectly admitted to having investigated it as part of the their DNC leak investigation. But alas, no... the FBI did not admit that Seth Rich was involved in the leak, or that they thought he was involved. This is also a great example of why I don't trust the judgement of most people. So why should I trust what Craig Murray said? He is a close friend of Assange's, and could easily have been giving him a hand in deflecting Russian involvement allegations from WikiLeaks. Or, maybe Murray is telling the truth, but was duped by a Russian agent into believing that the e-mails were hacked by a disgruntled DNC employee. (I happen to believe this is likely the case.) So, bottom line is this: If you or anyone want's to convince me of something, make it something simple and give me a source so I can verify it for myself. As I said, my mind is open, But I think you guys have probably been hoodwinked by Trump-friendly fake news sites... OR by commentators who have been hoodwinked by those sites. (I've noticed that Ben Cole, who is not a Trump supporter, thinks and speaks just like a Trump supporter. And I believe that he does so because he gets his news and commentaries from Trump-friendly fake news sites.) One other thing I'd like to say for whoever it was that disparaged Rachel Maddow... I believe that Rachel Maddow is very credible and is fair in her evaluations.

Hey William, I'm still a believer in the Mueller Report. But there is one thing the other side is right about, and I thought you should know. I don't know if you followed what I discovered this morning about the Huddleston v. Federal Bureau of Investigation FOIA lawsuit. That is that the FBI did indeed confiscate Seth Rich's laptop. Not only that, indications are that they investigated it to see if Rich was involved in the 2016 DNC server hack. So they've got that going for them. But I don't think the FBI concluded that Rich is guilty. Because in the very same legal document where the FBI gives out this information, they also say that 12 Russians have been indicted for the election interference, and they don't want information about Seth Rich's laptop to get out and potentially hurt the case against the Russians. If you want to read that legal document, go to this post. Read Document 83 Attachment 1, which I've quoted at the very bottom of the post.

I think I have some good news for you guys... something that maybe you haven't thought of. Presidents are not required to get security clearances, and yet they have access to some of the most highly sensitive classified documents. Have you ever wondered how the intelligence agencies deal with that? I did, a long time ago when I had to have background checks and take other steps to get clearances. My best friend and I came to the conclusion that, if a candidate for president wasn't fit for a security clearances, the intelligence agencies (probably just the CIA) would take measures into their own hands and make damn sure that any unfit presidential candidate who had a chance of winning, wouldn't. As of now, Donald Trump would be a national security risk if he became president. He's deeply in debt and nobody is willing to loan him the half billion he owes New York City. Nobody who is deeply in debt qualifies for a security clearance... at least not a Top Secret one. For the simple reason they will be tempted to sell secrets. In Trumps case, would anyone here be surprised to learn that Vladimir Putin would like to slip[Trump a half billion dollars? Yeah baby! That would be one hell of an investment. Even if Trump were too cautious to sell Putin secrets, nobody could say for sure that his pulling American funds from Ukraine was a Russian quid pro quo. Trump's been wanting America out of Ukraine for some time now. I don't care much for the CIA's dirty tricks. But in this case I'll hold my nose.

"Goofball" is what I call the a child who is misbehaving. "Infantile" is what I call an adult who is behaving like a child. When Robert Montenegro created his The Men Who Murdered President Kennedy thread, with his long list of perpetrators, a number of members poked fun at him for his list. He left because no one took him seriously. One person posted a particularly childish message. I felt like Robert had cast his pearls before swine. Luckily he came back and reposted his list... on a new thread. It was at that time that I wrote, "Robert, ignore the infantile goofballs." And I would say it again under the same circumstances.

IMO it is quite a stretch for plaintiff Huddleston to figure, from what the FBI stated, that they were admitting that Seth Rich is directly linked to the 'hack' of the Democratic National Committee email servers in 2016." To me, what it sounds like is that the FBI admitted they had investigated Seth Rich's laptop computer to see if he was involved. Which is a far cry from saying that they'd determined that Rich was guilty. Remember, in that court document itself the FBI were saying that the Russians were guilty.

I think I've found the answer as to what gave plaintiff Huddleston the idea that the FBI admitted Seth Rich is directly linked to the "hack" of the DNC email servers in 2016. It is in Document 83 (filed 12/9/22), Attachment 1. The FBI makes 36 numbered declarations in that document. The pertinent ones are #27 through #29, where the FBI gives reasons that certain information should not be released. Declarations #27 through #29 are quoted below. In short, they state that there are currently 12 Russians indicted for interfering with the 2016 election. And if the FBI were to release information related to the 2016 election interference investigation, it could be used to interfere with the investigation and the prosecution of those who are indicted. So apparently plaintiff Huddleston figured that, if the FBI is concerned about that in his lawsuit, then Seth Rich MUST be directly linked to the "hack" of the DNC email servers in 2016.

Following are the various admissions made by the FBI, according to plaintiff Huddleston: Document 18 (1/20/21): "First the FBI played dumb, claiming that no records existed. After getting backed into a corner, the FBI was forced to admit that the records exist, but now it asks the Court to string out production past the 2022 Congressional elections and possibly past the next Presidential election." Document 26 (6/14/21): "The FBI recently admitted to this Court that it has thousands of responsive pages and, as set forth below, the FBI has now admitted that it was already in possession of at least some of those documents at the very time that it claimed it was unable to locate any responsive documents." Document 46 (2/7/22): "As a result of this litigation, and despite previous testimony that it had no records whatsoever about Seth Rich, the FBI has been forced to admit that it possessed hundreds of pages of documents pertaining to Seth Rich, as well as laptop computers that belonged to Mr. Rich." Document 92 (1/13/23): "After years of denials, the FBI has finally admitted that Seth Rich is directly linked to the 'hack' of the Democratic National Committee email servers in 2016." The most interesting is the quote from Document 92. It's really hard to believe that the FBI admitted that Seth Rich is directly linked to the "hack" of the DNC email servers in 2016. The pertinent question is, how did plaintiff Huddleston get that idea? What were the FBI's actual words?

Here are are all the lawsuit documents filed for the Seth Rich case, Huddleston v. Federal Bureau of Investigation: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17211651/huddleston-v-federal-bureau-of-investigation/

The article isn't long enough to go into that kind of detail. (Particularly with all the conspiracy theories there are.) Same thing is true on the Wikipedia article on the WC/HSCA version of the narrative.

I've found the legal document indicating that the FBI has Seth Rich's laptop, a CD, and tape drive: https://www.justice.gov/oip/huddleston-v-fbi-no-20-00447-2023-wl-8235243-ed-tex-nov-28-2023-mazzant-j The document states that the FBI doesn't want to release information on it because it will reveal methods it uses in its investigations. What this tells me is that the FBI investigated the possibility that Seth Rich was a source of DNC e-mails leak. But it doesn't tell me that he indeed was. So I am still inclined to believe the Mueller report.

It represents the official WC and HSCA narratives quite well. If you read this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories you'll find that it represents the various conspiracy theories quite well.

Just in case you missed it @Keven Hofeling, still waiting for a citation. I can't find anything on the FBI admitting they have Seth Rich's computer, holding DNC e-mails. Other than right-wing fake news sites. EDIT: Never mind.

Citation please. Just on the allegation that the FBI admitted to having Seth Rich's computer and it having DNC e-mails on it. EDIT: Never mind.